Hoaxtead Research readers pointed out that not only does Belinda have no legal training or background, but that her actions would suggest that she has little regard for the law.

We were also perturbed to hear from readers who wrote us privately, stating that Belinda had actually contacted them via email stating that she works closely with an independent barrister, and asking whether they would be interested in having this barrister handle their family law case.

The idea of Belinda beating the bushes for business is reminiscent of the old days, when she’d stand outside the Royal Courts of Justice trawling for the desperate and vulnerable, in hopes of taking on new cases as a McKenzie friend. And the idea that any reputable firm would permit her to act in this way on their behalf is chilling, to say the least.

Commenter Mark Trellis pointed out yesterday,

The fact Belinda has picked up people – even sought them out – outside the Royal Courts of Justice etc at their most vulnerable, with as much idea as Sabine of her role and boundaries as a McKenzie Friend is one that should be of concern to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

If she cannot comprehend numerous directions regarding the identification of witnesses in Sabine’s trial and contravening these, what hope do clients of this firm have when they trust this woman with their private information? Belinda’s new method of recruiting those she thinks she can ‘help’?

The relevant governing body is the Bar Standards Board, but that quibble aside, we completely agree.

Belinda’s approach to being a McKenzie friend was always less about winning cases, and more about attempting to prove certain points which fit into her conspiracy theories. For example, she and Sabine have openly expressed their conviction that social workers “snatch” people’s children if they “like the look of them”, the implication being that such children are stolen in order to be sold to the highest bidder.

To say that this is not a view which should be espoused by any reputable officer of the court, or their Chambers Manager, is a vast understatement.

Belinda’s recent conviction for contempt of court is also concerning. Despite the fact that she is an educated and intelligent woman, and has spent enough time in and around the courts to know how something as simple as a reporting restriction works, she somehow managed to “forget”—twice—and wind up being found guilty of contempt of court.

And then there is the “client files for money” problem.

Fairly Sane pointed out that during the height of the Hampstead SRA hoax, on one of the fund-raising sites she was running Belinda was offering access to case documents to donors who made particularly large contributions. We objected to this at the time, and shortly thereafter, that option was removed from the fund-raising site. However, the fact that it was ever on offer is deeply problematic.

Should a person who believes that confidential information can be sold to the highest bidder really be entrusted with even the most basic information about clients at a law chambers?

We cannot make any comment at present about the law chambers for which Belinda currently works. However, we will be bringing this matter to the attention of the Bar Standards Board. We’ll let you know what happens.

Anyone having trouble sleeping? Check out Devines latest soporific remedy. What an absolute dickhead this man is. Wonder if he has booked his ticket back to Blighty for his Yellow Jacket rally yet. Somehow I don’t think so. King John will be wasting his money on a ticket as well as he is going to be refused entry if my efforts pay off.

Absolutely Tinribs. This is an utter disgrace beyond comprehension! The justice system is designed to treat every single person involved fairly and without prejudice…it might seem as if the defendant is favoured and that justice isn’t properly served but the actual reality is that fairness is widespread within the system via mediation, taking into consideration mitigating circumstances, giving chances etc.

Not one of us want to see (evil) Sabeel suffer inordinately and it won’t be our lack of faith in the justice system which might cause us disappointment should Sabeel enjoy an early release because as sure as eggs is eggs that woman will repeat her bad behaviour …she’s gonna be a recidivist.

Um is it just me or this dimwit seems to think that Victoria (a state in Australia) somehow means that Queen Elizabeth is somehow Queen Victoria in Australia????
Does that mean all the people in New South Wales (another Australian state) should all speak Welsh???
Or that every woman in Queensland is now royalty???

Believe me, she was just warming up there. Here’s a collection of her unhinged ramblings from just the last two days (the majority of which have been reported). They’re not for the fainthearted and include a number of death threats to a protected witness and other people (and naturally she’s being aided and abetted by Scamgela):

In a way I guess “King” John is encouraging treason in the real sense ( ie: not like Neelu’s twisted notion).
I don’t know about others but even though I’m a raging Socialist and understand the desire for a Republic is morally justified, I’m also a great fan of the Royal Family (warts and all) and of course Her Majesty who has never out a foot wrong and contrary to some conspiraturds, I’m reliably informed does NOT have a stolen Canadian Inuit kiddie for breakfast along with her cup of Earl Grey. I even like Prince Charles and have finally warmed to Camilla.

Should Mr Wanoa be able to enter the UK when he’s demanding an insurrection & overthrow of both Parliament and the Monarchy not via democratic means rather encouraging The Mob (in Yellow Jackets) to storm the Palace Gates?. I think not.

So Ms S (or Mrs S – I don’t know) thinks that Victoria Derbyshire is guilty by association because she once interviewed the Dad in the case? It’s pretty mean to say something like she (Victoria) had cancer because of karma. I was more familiar (as in listened to, not as in met her personally) with Victoria as a radio presenter than as a TV one.

I don’t know if there are any people with a social work background that post here (and even if there are I wouldn’t want them to reveal too much lest they be doxed) but I always thought social workers tried to keep families together. They are in a sort of “Morton’s fork” position – possibly d—-d if they do intervene, possibly d—-d if they don’t. The social workers in the Baby P and Victoria Climbie´ cases were censured for NOT intervening more, though those were tragic cases.

Well said Tinribs. It most definitely is very handy to have input from legal experts. Don’t be so hasty about them sharing their advice for free though as a bill may winging its way to GCHQ as we speak. 😉

Wow, Christine Sands sounds like she is ‘high’ ie having delusions of grandeur in a bipolar episode – she makes me sick. Imagine how the children will feel when they find this, one day? They will feel humiliated. Sigh. The stupid idiots that cannot grasp or do not want to look at the context in which that document was produced. Dr Hodes has a lot to answer for. I wonder if any lessons were learned after her contamination by Ella Draper.Look where it’s ended, with nutters like Sands using Ella’s manipulation of Dr Hodes as ‘evidence’ for their arguments…No paediatrician examining for sexual abuse in children should really be briefed by anyone, else they are influenced, as Hodes was.

Arthur and Jake were obviously mentally ill and she was quite happy to manipulate them until they got Sectioned. She really doesn’t care who she hurts she is, in the words of Rupert who ended up in prison largely because of her, “not a nice person”.

on the dangers of rouge McKenzie friends – and what about rouge chamber managers?

‘Primary Danger – MKF who have axes to grind or who just don’t understand what they are supposed to be doing.’

MKUltra highlights Belinda in her capacity as McKenzie Friend in the Hampstead Case:

Belinda is still up as Manager on the 160 Fleet St Chambers…any bets as to how long it will take for her to be removed? Or will the barrister fight for her as she is cheap? He must know he would be liable if any boundary were to be broken…and the consequences of that, given we have warned him? Has anyone sent him a link to this page?

Fancy Belinda being stupid enough to be represented by the barrister she works for.

Is this the same Devine Bar who filmed himself phoning the House of Lords and told the female telephone receptionist he could to speak to her because as she was a female she couldn’t be a Freemason?
Oh yes it is.

He can be arrogant at times but I put it down to youthful enthusiasm.. He is a very good performer on TV . His virulent anti-Corbyn stance was proved very wrong and he switched sides immediately.

Doesn’t matter where you stand on Corbyn, Jones was one who before the last election vehemently claimed Corbyn was ineluctable but turned on sixpence as the results came in. It indicated to me that he wasn’t following the real concerns of millions of Brits which seem pretty obvious to me and was being blinded by media perceptions and the old Blairite mob.
Still, he’s learning on the job.

But he does block people on Twitter and he blocked several when they attacked him over what were quite disgraceful attacks on the actor Kevin Spacey who was facing unproved allegations and the manner of his “coming out”.
Jones nor any other person has a right to dictate anyone’s method if they want to declare their sexuality. Spacey was facing serious claims and has been basically destroyed in a trial by media and although he gave a fairly fumbled account Jones basically claimed Spacey was tying sexual assault to being gay.
And he did it angrily as though he being gay himself somehow gave him insight into someone else’s mindset or a right to pontificate on the manner in which they handle something that Jones couldn’t possibly know about – the destruction of a career in a trial be media (whatever the truth is). It indicated to me that Owen Jones is as inside the media establishment as much as others.
I also think he is very articulate and intelligent but I reckon he also seems at time like an accident waiting to happen and could blow his career with a few badly chosen statements.

Has Britain in the past 70 years not been absolutely fascinated or scarily, intoxicated by media reports of sexual shenanigans whether it be errant Vicars or serious child abuse cases?.
Have not our tabloid media over the past 10 years been ready to seize upon anything that may remotely involve child sexual assault?.
Is there not currently an ILCSA and have not British police been eager to pounce upon any accusation, real or false where child abuse is concerned ( Jimmy Savile,Ted Heath?) and they have the full backing or support of 99% of UK media who will report every single thing claimed?.

Yet this crowd continue to claim there is some vast cover-up when anyone who has had just 5 minutes of fame is likely to be accused these days. I don’t think they actually take notice of any of the real shocking scandals that have been exposed.